In a recent Threats Watch article entitled Saudi Arabia: No Small Challenge, No Great Ally, Steve Schippert makes a succinct and relevant case for the dichotomy the US faces in relations with the House of Saud. What he could have underscored a bit more is the reason for the dichotomy.

But that the Saudi legislature voted down legislation (77-33) calling for the same respect is a fair and clear barometer that the problem does not simply lie with a few dozen clerics. It’s systemic. If a respected religious authority calls for the execution of someone who simply suggests that people holding other faiths deserve respect, doesn’t that tell Saudis that the lives of Christians, Jews, Hindu and Buddhists are of lesser value?

Abdul-Rahman al-Barrak, a 75-year-old sheikh, issued the fatwa calling for the journalists’ death. In Saudi Arabia, he is a leading authority on Wahhabism, the country’s fundamentalist form of Sunni Islam.

“It’s disgraceful that articles containing this kind of apostasy should be published in some papers in Saudi Arabia,” he wrote last month. If the reporters do not repent, they “should be killed,” he wrote.

Barrak is not just some cranky old miscreant. He is a member of the Saudi legislature, appointed by the king. Barrak spent a long career in senior positions at a respected government-funded university.

Soon after, 20 other senior Saudi clerics stood up to enthusiastically endorse Barrak’s fatwa. Later, about 100 human-rights advocates from across the region condemned the edict, calling it intellectual terrorism. That had little visible impact in Riyadh.

There are a couple of aspects we should remind ourselves of in trying to understand our relationship with Saudi Arabia because the relationship is enigmatic at best.

The contemporary Al Saud royal family came to power because Muhammad ibn Saud was able to convince the British government of 1920’s-1930’s that he maintained control over the people of what is now the Saudi kingdom. His control was exerted by his Wahhabi fighters - who had pledge allegiance to the Al Saud dynasty in the mid 1700’s. Saudi Arabia is a nation founded on Wahhabism - where the Quran and the Sunna (the exact path and literal teachings of Mohammad) is everything.

This instance of working with the British government was not the first instance of Muslims relying on the infidel to help gain power and it certainly was not the last. It is occurring even today with the US realpolitik relationship with Al Saud.

The United States government has long been the only reason a Saud family member is still ruling Arabia. They depend on the very infidel they despise in order to remain in power.  There are some 30,000 members of the Saudi family - so to even say that “the family” is our ally would be a misrepresentation of the situation. One should look at the Al Saud family as a slice of bread. There is a crust and then the inner part of the bread.

The upper crust of the House of Saud is our “ally” - they ignore Wahabbist doctine to suit them, when it suits them - in order to stay in power. There should never be a statement, and Steve Schrippert did not make one, that gives one the belief that the bread of Saudi Arabia is an ally.  He characterizes the problem with Saudi Arabia as systemic and could not be more right about it.

The imperialist gene which drove ibn Saud to seek power from the British in the 1920’s has served the reign of Al Saud well through the decades. The royal family keeps its enemies very close because it benefits them to do so.

The Kremlin has expelled two-military attaches from the United States Embassy in Moscow. Many in the media are wondering why in their reports of the event. The reason is simple - reciprocity.

The entire diplomatic world - and especially between countries with a sense of negativity toward one another - is based upon a simple concept of reciprocal treatment. If we search the diplomats at entry checkpoints, they do the same to ours. Last year, the US expelled two-Russian military attaches and the Russians are reciprocating.

Some will soon say the US attaches were “caught spying” and this led to their PNG status. Let me assure you there is not a military attache’ in any embassy in the world who is not engaged in some sort of espionage. That is what they are there for and everyone knows it. There is a wink-wink, nudge-nudge understanding that as long as the espionage is not so overt a common citizen would recognize it, it is usually not acted upon. So espionage will not be the true reason on either side of this issue. that takes us back to reciprocity.

Last Year, the US was trying to get President Putin’s attention and expelling diplomats is a serious enough event to do that that sends a message about some issue between the White House and the Kremlin. Only the highly placed State Department and Administration officials know what the true issue is., but this year, the Kremlin gave us the answer to whatever last year’s question was. The answer, by way of these expulsions, is “up yours”.

I am overjoyed by the visit of Pope Benedict to the US this week. My feeling is he should visit America more often. In no other country is the Catholic ship so off course than in the US.

American Catholicism is becoming an oxymoron. There is a great dichotomy between the teachings of the Church and what people feel is their duty as Catholics - especially in the realm of policy.

Before anyone starts telling me about the separation of Church and State in the US, I will mention that I am not talking about a state religion. I am talking about the manifestation - through persoanl actions - of one’s values. If you are motivated to believe there is something intrinsicly wrong with slavery, for example; that motivation comes from somewhere. It is not merely an abstract, but a conviction based in your concept of right and wrong, and it has an origin. This is apparent because slavery is likely the oldest institution of humanity, aside from war. Your understanding of the abhorrent nature of slavery is grounded by a belief or faith in an ideal. It may not be completely tangible, but it is absolute in its impact on your understanding of right and wrong. This absolute is no different for people who share God and the teachings of Jesus Christ as the foundation for their values.

This brings us to the crux of the issue. It is really simple - and is completely embraced by the Nicene Creed, with which every Catholic is very familiar.

“We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen. We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father; through him all things were made. For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven, was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became truly human. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried. On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end. 

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father [and the Son], who with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified, who has spoken through the prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.”

Note that the Creed says throughout “We believe” - We being “the adherents of the Church”. Those called by the divine message to serve our Lord. The Nicene Creed came about to provide the average 4th Century Catholic with a simple means to digest the foundational beliefs of the Church vs. the many heretical interpretations of Catholic doctrine throughout the world by people teaching in the name of the Catholic Church. The most important point is it is a statement of belief, from the heart.

By extension, the teachings of the Catholic Church are as absolute as humanly possible. It is clear that Catholicism is not a democracy. Either you are a believer in one, apostolic Church - and everything that conveys - or you are not.

So, to have an attitude which propels your thinking on policy - and identifying yourself as a Catholic - which is in direct contravention to the teachings of the Church implies either a misconception of the Catechism or a falling away from it. For example, a Catholic university which welcomes speakers who are pro-abortion, but bans speakers who are anti-abortion is in direct contravention to the very definition of Catholic. Another example is avowed Catholics who support abortion and work to widen the scope of abortions in this country. You hear these people saying their religion does not impact their policy stances. As if the basis for your values has nothing to do with how you feel the world should be. If your beliefs in the absolute of The Trinity do not shape your ideals of society, what does? Ideology comes to mind.

Many Catholics in America have allowed a leftist ideology to supplant their spiritual convictions. Mind over soul - they have fallen away from God. It is often explained away as something which takes thought, instead of “feeling”, as if your commitment to God is equivalent to your enjoyment of roses. This attitude shows a qualitative lack in intellectual reason.

The broad scope of dichotomy between avowed personal beliefs and policy positions of so many American Catholics shows how far American Catholicism has drifted from the Church. The Visit of the Holy Father is opportune, and I hope effective, in that American Catholics need to be reminded of their commitments - rather than simply thinking about their wishes. We need to be reminded that we are supposed to be using our intellects to serve God, instead of using our intellects to explain why we don’t serve Him.

Given that the Khartoum government has shown zero interest in doing anything other than support the enslavement and eradication of Africans in Sudan, I pose two questions:

1) Instead of calling on others to conduct “peacekeeping” operations in Sudan, why are we not aggressively prosecuting military action against the Muslim marauders in the region?

2) Why have we not intigated and supported activity directly targeting the Khartoum government?

There is no “peace” to keep in Sudan. The Sudanese government is directly coordinating and supporting activities specifically designed to kill vast numbers of non-Arab people in the Sudan. This is not my idea of peace.  This ia also not, as it has been described, an “African problem” to be solved solely by Africans. Not only has the African Union mission been completely incapable of securing peace for the victims on Khartoum’s genocidal activities, they have barely been able to provide for their own force protection. The UN is taking over the mission, but with little material differences in the scale or composition of the foces on the ground.

I am also dismayed by all of those institutions in the US, who claim to have a close connection of the soul with Africa. Aside from an abstract rallying cry of “Save Darfur”, what are they doing? Aside from the bumper stickers proclaiming a cause, how much are they working toward gaining real solution in Sudan? Where is the outrage against slavery in Africa? Where is the anger and action about a level of genocide many times worse than Srebrenica?

I am one person and I am unsure of what to do - but there are millions of us single persons doing nothing more than talking, while our government does nothing more than condemn and call on others to act.

Shame on us all.

I don’t do book reviews.  I leave that to smart people.  However, I do spend a lot of time trying to figure out what is going on in the world around us. 

This week we have seen another phase of the war in Iraq.  The Iraqi military is attempting to assert its influence and regain control of the country.  We are going to be able to see pretty soon if the training and equipping we have done were enough and whether there is the political will by the Iraqi government to enforce its sovereignty over its territory.  Our forces are still there in a supporting role but it appears that a decision has been made to try to allow the Iraqis to take the lead.  When they are able to do this, we can realistically start talking about our forces coming home. 

While I was in law school I did not have much time to read about how we got to the position we are in with regard to Afghanistan and Iraq.  I think it is important to understand this because we are on the verge of electing a new president and new members of Congress.  Much of the political debate this year will concern what mistakes were made and what we should do in the future.  Much, if not all, of the commentary will be politically biased.  A great deal of the discourse will come from people who don’t know what they are talking about and who don’t think you are smart enough to find out for yourself; the old “Trust me, I will solve the problem” approach to politics.

It is interesting that histories of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars are being written so soon.  In past wars we had reporter accounts created during the war but it generally took twenty years or so before the substantive histories were written.  Thankfully, that is no longer the case.  Now it seems that everyone has at least one personal computer, a good word processor program and we have the Internet to spread the word. 

I think it is great that we can understand how our national policies are formed in such a current fashion so that we can actively engage our political leadership to reflect the views of the American citizens.  However, it puts the responsibility on each of us to be accurately informed and not depend on the media commentators and various news sources to digest our history for us and only give us the information they want us to have.

I recently had the opportunity to read several books which provide a lot of insight and useful information to help me better understand what happened in the decision making process at the national level in the aftermath of the attacks of September 11.  If you are as concerned about our national security as I am, you might want to spend a little time gathering facts about what really happened.

If you decide to read these books, please remember that each of the authors and editors writes and publishes these books from their own perspective; they were participants and they have a story they want to tell.  Historians apply the filters of history to produce their works.  The products are different.  Don’t take any single source of information as the gospel.  However, these three books serve as a good basis for understanding much of what has happened in the last six years with regard to our national response to the September 11 attacks.  I am sure there are many others and you might choose to enlighten me about what you have read as well.  I will take a look at whatever you recommend.

I have included links to reviews that present contrasting views of the books.  This clearly shows that there are widely varying opinions on what the “facts” really are.  Also one more note:  Don’t read Cobra II if you are not ready to admit that George Bush’s administration and our military leadership have made mistakes in the conduct of the war.  Cobra II is the best of the three books but you will probably be disappointed, frustrated or outraged that many of the mistakes described in the book were allowed to happen.

 Here are links to reviews on three books I think are important to understanding how we got to where we are in Iraq and Afghanistan:

1.      American Soldier, by Tommy Franks, HarperCollins/Regan Books, 2004. $27.95. 

Review located at:

·        http://www.strategypage.com/bookreviews/229.asp and

·        http://www.bookreporter.com/reviews2/0060731583.asp and

·        http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/bookrev/franks1.html

2.      At the Center of the Storm: My Years at the C.I.A. By George Tenet with Bill Harlow, HarperCollins, 2007. $30.

Review located at:

·        http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/28/books/28kaku.html?_r=1&ref=books/oAn%20Ex-C.I.A.%20Chief%20on%20Iraq%20and%20the%20Slam%20Dunk%20That%20Wasn%92t/t_blank&oref=slogin

·        http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OWVjNjgyOGZiYzBlMzFlYTM3YTg4OGQ3NTBhYjc4NjQ=

·        http://www.dougfeith.com/coverage_6.html

3.      Cobra II: The Inside Story of the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq, by Michael R. Gordon and Bernard E. Trainor, Random House, 2006. $27.95

Review located at:

·        http://www.nationalreview.com/owens/owens200604170810.asp

·        http://www.powells.com/review/2006_04_20.html

·        http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/30/books/review/30heilbrun.html?ex=1304049600&en=ffc80747ae84f966&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss.

Benny

But not where you think.

The United States has announced that it is planning to help Egypt build a border fence along the Gaza-Egypt border. Washington transferred $23 million worth of special aid to the North African nation as part of its assistance in locating smuggling tunnels.

Because there is no way we could put $23 million to use on a US border to control smuggling.

Remember all of those pictures from the news agencies of Camp Xray in Guantanamo? Lots of chain link fence, and orange jump-suited guys with hoods on their heads kneeling on the ground awaiting processing? Anytime you see news about GITMO - even today - those pictures tend to accompany the story.

Would it surprise you to know that Camp Xray has been deserted since 2002? It was only open for a few months, while other facilities were being built.

Of the camps currently in use, none come close to justifying the concerns of the Gitmo’s critics, let alone Amnesty International’s feverish judgment that it is the “gulag of our time.” Visiting Camp 4, Gitmo’s medium-security compound, one can see detainees walking about freely. And though the fact that many of the detainees wear unruly, Islamic beards is slightly disconcerting, it is consistent with the military’s intention to make their detention as comfortable as possible under the circumstances.

But of course, the news reports certainly convey the sleep deprivation and inhumane isolation of the many thousands of detainees.

Toward that purpose, Camp 4 offers a number of diversions, courtesy of American taxpayers. There is an outdoor basketball court, and a 6,000-book library, from which detainees can check out everything from hobby magazines like Bird Watcher’s Digest, to commentaries on Islam, to Agatha Christie thrillers. The latter come complete with white stickers blocking the author’s photo, lest the detainees deem the grande dame of the mystery novel too much of a seductress. “By western standards it wouldn’t be very offensive, but [the detainees] would have a problem with that,” explains Julie, Gitmo’s head librarian, somewhat apologetically. Detainees can also check out DVDs–nature documentaries and international soccer matches are particularly popular–and a flat-screen television is available at the camp for viewing. And, just as American troops stationed on the base can take academic and vocational courses, Camp 4 has a special classroom where detainees can learn English, Arabic, or Pashtu.

Special care is taken to allow detainees to practice their religion, which is invariably Islam. A kit of provisions issued to Camp 4 inmates includes not only bare necessities like a toothbrush and a uniform, as well as luxuries like prescription glasses and electric razors on selected days, but also prayer beads and oils, and a Koran that guards are under no circumstances permitted to handle. It is a measure of the deference–one might even say reverence–shown to the Muslim holy book that the military doesn’t even provide a sample copy on a display table of representative items shown to journalists. “Out of respect,” explains an officer in charge of Camp 4, who declines to be identified for security reasons.

To be certain, it would be very one-sided of me to only cite this article - which is a first hand account by the way - as it relates to the medium security accommodations.

Less hospitable conditions might be expected in camps 5 and 6, Gitmo’s maximum-security complexes. To some extent, that is the case. With a narrow bed, a metal sink, and a small slit for a window, the cells in Camp 5 are no one’s idea of paradise. Within those confines, however, the detainees are granted substantial privileges. Climate controlled, the cells come equipped with a communications system that allows detainees to talk to the guards. Beneath the beds, one finds stenciled arrows pointing to Mecca, and detainees can elect their own imams, or prayer leaders–a concession that may well favor more extreme elements in the detainee population but which the military is nonetheless determined to grant.

Perhaps the most curious room at Camp 5 is furnished with a plush blue couch for the detainees. Were it not for the leg restraints at its foot, one might never guess that this is where interrogations take place. Of the steel-floored cells were detainees are alleged to be beaten for information there is not a trace of violence. Those who consider Gitmo an affront to international law might also be surprised to learn that Camp 5’s recreation yard not only has news bulletins from the Middle East but also a prominently displayed copy of the Geneva Conventions. While Gitmo is not officially governed by the treaties, the military makes every effort to make sure that detainees are treated in accordance with them. There is even a so-called “habeas room” for detainees to meet with their counsel. A gulag, plainly, this is not.

Even Camp 6, home to the most dangerous of Gitmo’s approximately 275 detainees, confounds the image of excessive confinement and ubiquitous brutality with which the naval base has come to be identified. True, the recreation facilities here are smaller and indoors, and the two-hour (minimum) exercise time less generous, but it would take a willful disregard of the evidence to see it as a U.S.-run “concentration camp.” Not the least of the reasons for that is that the military guards on duty here, as in other Gitmo camps, go out of their way to minimize the use of force. Trained to contain a mass riot, the guards actually spend most of their time trying to diffuse confrontation. “It doesn’t have to get physical,” insists Shawn Johnson, a guard at Camp 6.

Yeah - I know. I am being unfair. Because, in spite of all of this the detainees are still treated roughly and the air conditioning is set super super high to make it extremely uncomfortable for the detainees.

This is not to deny that abuse is a problem Gitmo. It’s just that most of it is done by the detainees. “The only mistreatment that goes on inside the camps is detainees on guards, and the guards absorb it without retribution,” says Army Brigadier General Greg Zanetti, Gitmo’s deputy commander. Zanetti notes that while many of the detainees have been here for five to six years, more than enough time to discover the best way to harass their captors, many of the guards are just weeks or months into their post. “For a while there, it’s an unfair match,” Zanetti says.

Underscoring the general’s point are some disturbing figures. In 2006, for instance, there were over 3,000 recorded incidents of detainee misconduct, instances which included 432 assaults with bodily fluids, 227 physical assaults, and 99 efforts “to incite a disturbance or riot.” That certainly suggests that Gitmo is a dangerous place, just not in the way its detractors imagine.

I think Jacob Laskin makes a good point when he says:

One source of conflict stems from the fact that, in contrast to journalists, lawyers for the detainees are not granted tours of Gitmo’s camps. It is not surprising, then, that the more outrageous claims about the treatment of the detainees and the conditions inside the camps more generally issue from those least familiar with them.

But then, the military is trying to respect the obligations we have with regards to how these detainees are treated. Parading them in front of the American public is in direct contravention to that.

A recent email thread prompted me to write again about Kosovo. It’s important for people to get an understanding of why there is so much support for Kosovar independence and why Serbia - which would welcome entirely different relations with the US or the West in general – garners no support at all.

I have mostly focused on US efforts to gain the love of Muslims and our projection of power in Russia’s backyard as the main reasons for the US position on Kosovo. However, there are other issues.

The destruction of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) and the relegation of Serbia to the West’s whipping boy came about because of the nationalist ambitions of every ethnic group making up the soviet-era Yugoslavia. The Serbian military support for Bosnian and Croatian Serbian nationalists was probably the geopolitical catalyst for NATO action against them. Milosevic bit off way more than he could chew with Bosnia and Croatia. He drew a line in the sand with regards to those two countries and was thrown under the bus by those he supported. I don’t know specifically if Milosevic was guilty of any war crimes because of the orders he issued. I know he was castigated because of his support for the Serbian uprising across the Balkans - but when it came time to talk in Dayton, as far as diplomacy was concerned, Milosevic was offered all stick and no carrot.

It may be an over-simplification of the issue, but the NATO/US actions against Serbia to stop genocide was a fallacy. A year before Srebrenica the world watched and did nothing as 800,000 Hutus and Tutsis were killed. Yet, Milosevic was seen – as much as Mladic – as the reason 8,300 men and boys were killed and 40,000 residents displaced in Srebrenica.

I have no love for Milosevic. I see him as an oppressive communist with nationalist ambitions of returning Serbians to glory throughout the Balkans. Yet, despite a lack of war crimes evidence against him, Milosevic seems to have been as much a victim of Srebrenica as those who were murdered there. The atrocities at Srebrenica killed him too. Those who were more directly involved in the atrocities are still at large, and the Serbian government is being held responsible for that – fair treatment or excuse to break up a nation? You decide.

Just as anyone else who had an interest in the region, NATO was filling a strategic vacuum and the straw man was genocide. These days, if you look at the news reports, you don’t see a lot of reference to NATO. The terms used now are “international community”, UN, US, and EU as the diplomacy becomes more “civil” in nature - which brings us to Kosovo being carved out of Serbia. Call it whatever you want, but that is exactly what is happening – no different from the parceling that occurred at the end of the Great War. And the reasons are no different, either.

Since 2000, Serbia has had diplomatic relations restored with many countries, including the US, and has rejoined the OSCE and the United Nations. Underscore: Serbia is a member of the United Nations. In 2003, the United States confirmed that Serbia was operating under its commitments of Dayton-Paris. Underscore: Serbia is not in violation of any treaties or “international law”. There is still a carrot and stick scenario for Serbia - again mostly stick. Serbia can ostensibly get back into western favor and join the EU; the stick seems to be lose Kosovo.

The question of Kosovo independence is about what - ethnic demography? Muslims have displaced and oppressed Serbians from this region since the reign of the Ottoman Empire. Kosovo is recognized as a part of a sovereign Serbia in UN resolution 1244. That resolution also requires the KLA to demilitarize – has it done so? That resolution also allows the UN to facilitate a political process to determine the future status of Kosovo. Facilitate a process – the last time I checked - did not mean impose. It means to be the non-interested party in a discussion between the principles in such a way as to keep the discussion alive. The UN is not facilitating the discussion; it is declaring “independence for Kosovo as the only viable option”.

To me, western nations are making the same grunting noises now that were being made during the aftermath of the Great War. Britain, France, and Italy were still steeped in the imperial traditions during the parceling of the Ottoman Empire. I don’t see a great deal of difference between the European Union today and the European parties of the Entente 100 years ago. Back then America was an undecided observer/participant with no real aims for the region – especially since Russia was out of the picture when the Bolshevik kicked off. Today, Kosovo seems to have a two-fold appeal to our government. The first is to show Muslims across the world that the US is not anti-Muslim. The second is to have a strategic bridgehead in or near Russia’s sphere of influence. Kosovo suffices are part of both missions.

My opposition to an independent Kosovo is - ironically – in agreement with what appears to be Russia’s position. Yet, Russia is in a push-pull situation because the Kremlin position on Kosovo is in direct contravention with its position on South Ossetia. However, think of all of the separatist movements existing in just about every nation on the globe. Kosovo can easily become the catalyst for each of those movements to have some measure of international credibility as independent nation-state candidates. Is the UN going to “facilitate” the destruction of those nations too - France, Britain, China, Russia, Georgia, etc? How can you be so sure?

Dan Blather is equating the fact that Hillary Clinton has trouble pronouncing the new Russian president’s name (Med-Vyed-Ev - ironically, “of the bears”) to a neglected relationship with Russia.

Rather said Hillary Clinton’s recent stumble over the new Russian President’s name shows the growing lack of knowledge in America.

“I think it gives you an indication of how much lack of knowledge there is in the country as a whole because after all if a Senator Hillary Clinton did not know these things than what does it say about the rest of the population,” he said.

At the moment, Rather says, the situation between the U.S. and Russian governments is “one that every American should be concerned about”.

He doesn’t see it as a new Cold War, but a “whole new era, for which we need some new name”. However, this era is “dangerous because of misunderstanding”.

According to Rather, the biggest problem in terms of American foreign policy it that “it’s been neglectful of Russia”.

This is yet another example of the “blame America first” mentality of these Leftist loop jobs. The relationship has not suffered because of Putin’s centralization of power; nor because they have decided to proliferate nuclear weapons; not Putin’s statements of muscle-flexing toward the west; not Russia’s opposition on Iraq, Iran, and Eastern Europe; not the capitulation of democratic government in Russia. None of those things strain the US-Russia relations. Nope, it’s all America’s fault.

A B2 bomber has crashed on guam with no loss of life.

Developing.